BREAKING: The Supreme Court Just Made Gay Marriage Legal in US

1. 0

   PrettyPantherposted 9 years ago

   The world is a' changin' and we're a little slow but we're tagging along.
   
   Read the opinion in its entirety here:
   http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/06 … y-marriage
   
   

   replyreport
   1. 80

      Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Good Gravy Pretty P.,  after:
      
      1. Pulling down of the Confederate Flag across Dixie Land
      2. ObamaCare principle given the blessing and OK by the Supreme Court
      3. Finally this bombshell from the SC, regarding gay marriage
      
      Lets face it Rush Limbaugh and the forces of the Right are having a bad week.
      
      Conservatives are always disappointed when GOP presidents appoint what they believe to be conservative jurists to the bench to only find out that once the new justice arrives and is confronted with the reality of the world around them, they grow up and realize that they have to stand with the Left. (Earl Warren is the best example) They have to put aside all the cryptic right wing ideolgy. The 6 to 3 ruling in favor of the ACA is a strong endorsement that is not going to turned around lightly.
      
      Could there only be 2-3 die hard rightwingers on the SC now?
      Nice to see you, as always!!!

      replyreport
      1. 0

         PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         This old liberal heart (okay, not that old, only 56) is feeling mighty warm today.  :-)

         replyreport
         1. 84

            gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            This is INDEED good news.  People have the right to marry whom they love regardless of sexual orientation.  LOVE is LOVE.

            replyreport
            1. 93

               AliciaCposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               +1 This is great news!

               replyreport
               1. 79

                  Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  Huge change, I thought pot would be 1st before gay marriage to be legal. It will be very interesting how all this translates. Only 80 countries to go, in making gay sex legal. More people are being lockup over a green plant, than anything.
                  
                  Great News, great start!!! Now just let our green people go.

                  replyreport
                  1. 79

                     Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     If you get caught with a joint in your mouth, make sure it's a guy.

                     replyreport
            2. 57

               retief2000posted 9 years agoin reply to this

               What is love and how is it legally defined and where does it appear in the application for a marriage license? Has love ever been legally required for marriage?

               replyreport
      2. 83

         skperdonposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         A person have the right to legally get married to their partner if that is their desire, and I'm happy that decision was made by the Supreme Court.

         replyreport
2. 72

   Aime Fposted 9 years ago

   Congratulations!

   replyreport
3. 60

   Superkevposted 9 years ago

   Okay, next up let's have Polygamy legalized, every argument made for gay marriage can be equally applied to plural marriage. Even Chief Justice Roberts stated so. So let's get that done, we want to be on the right side of history don't we???
   
   And too, based on the arguments used to support gay marriage as a right, we should also have the right to carry a concealed weapon in all 50 states and the District of Columbia as of right now.
   
   "Amendment XIV Section 1. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
   
   "By using the Constitution in such a manner, the Court argues that the Due Process Clause extends “certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy” accepted in a majority of states across the state lines of a handful of states that still banned the practice. The vast majority of states are “shall issue” on the matter of issuing concealed carry permits, and enjoy reciprocity with a large number of other states."
   
   http://constitutionalrightspac.com/arti … Y1uVp.dpuf

   replyreport
   1. 0

      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Hmmm, I think I've heard this argument before. 
      
      Same old story.  Social change is occurring and you are scared.  Now, you're conjuring up  reasons to be afraid that are unrelated to the topic at hand.  Relax, your life will not change because two people of the same sex can now get married.

      replyreport
      1. 60

         Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Scared? Hardly. I am joyous if anything, as now there is no argument to be for why others should not be treated exactly the same as gays under the law. That means Constitutional Concealed Carry in ALL 50 States as well as the District of Columbia. You cannot limit the SCOTUS interpretation simply based on the you are for gay marriage but against concealed carry.
         
         You want to be equal under the law? We are asking for nothing more, and there is zero argument now you can make based on the SCOTUS current interpretation of the 14th amendment. Same with Polygamy, what is your constitutional argument against that now? There is none.
         
         We must all be treated the same under law, so let's get on with it.
         
         I do wonder, however, what you will say when pedophiles bring suit arguing that this a sexual orientation no different from being homosexual and they demand to be allowed to marry 8 year old's. Gauranteed it will happen, and soon.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            See, this is just ridiculous.  Two adults in a consensual relationship being allowed to marry can in no way be compared to a pedophile inflicting pain upon a minor.  The fact that you even make such a comparison reveals you are deeply fearful, whether or not you recognize or admit it.

            replyreport
            1. 60

               Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

               HAHA, there is no fear here, as much as you would love to be convinced otherwise.
               
               This is an argument that has been made in the past and will be made even more forcefully now. There are a number of psychologists and others who have stated outright that they feel pedophilia is as much a sexual orientation as homosexuality. Certainly NAMBLA and other pro-pedo organizations have made this argument. This is not a comparison *I* make, it's one *they* make....all the time.
               
               And so will the polygamists, and really, how can you make any reasonable argument against that now? There is no constitutional basis and either we have freedom of religion in this country, or we don't. So look for plural marriage coming to a city or town near you in the very near future.
               
               And same with concealed carry, there is zero constitutional basis now for denying that right to all citizens, in all 50 states and DC. Look for that coming your way soon as well.
               
               And now that gays are completely equal under the law, they must be removed from consideration in any hate crime laws forthwith. Who you sleep with or marry should not garner you special consideration under the law. An assault on you, is the same as an assault on me. We're equal, right?

               replyreport
               1. 0

                  PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                  All races are treated equally under the law, yet we still classify certain racially motivated crimes as hate crimes.  Why would that change with regard to sexual orientation?
                  
                  You're desperately reaching with the whole pedophilia angle.  It doesn't merit a response.
                  
                  Edited to add:  I don't need to be convinced that your fear is real. I'm the one who introduced the idea, remember?

                  replyreport
                  1. 60

                     Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                     Ahh, I see, so because you say it, it must be true. Gotcha.
                     
                     Now, please explain how who you sleep with or marry should rate you special consideration under the law, and further to same, why should the color of your skin have the same effect?
                     
                     If I am assaulted and robbed by a black man who hates whites, let's say he is a member of the Black Panther Party for instance, is that any better or worse if the reverse is true? How? Please explain. 
                     
                     And, am I really reaching with the whole pedophilia issue?
                     
                     http://patdollard.com/2013/07/it-begins … ZCk4ru3.99
                     
                     Please pay special attention to the text in bold. Thanks.
                     
                     "Republicans attempted to add an amendment specifying that “pedophilia is not covered as an orientation;” however, the amendment was defeated by Democrats. Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fl) stated that all alternative sexual lifestyles should be protected under the law. “This bill addresses our resolve to end violence based on prejudice and to guarantee that all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”

                     replyreport
                     1. 0

                        PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        I am not going to explain to you the need for laws against hate crimes.  I know it would do no good.  Interpret that as you wish because I know exactly what I mean.
                        
                        Again, pedophilia is not an alternative sexual lifestyle.  It is a crime against minors.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           Not going to, or can't? LOL
                           
                           So, if I was assaulted and robbed by a black man, a member of the Black Panther Party let's say, and during commission of the crime he called me a honky, white devil and peckerwood as he was smashing my face and taking my watch and wallet, Should this be considered a hate crime and should this person be prosecuted with enhanced sentencing for the obvious racial bias that motivated it?
                           
                           Why or why not?
                           
                           Surely an intelligent person like you can answer at minimum yes or no to this.
                           
                           PS- Apparently the Democrat Rep from Florida disagrees with your opinion on pedophilia.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              If the impetus of the crime was due primarily due to racist/homophobic causes, then yes, your example may well be considered a "hate crime'. The purpose of the assault was more than mere robbery.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 But what if the main purpose was simply to rob me for my valuable possessions, and just as an aside he hates white people and uses those racial slurs on a daily basis? Is using a racial slur during the commission of a crime enough for it to be considered a hate crime?
                                 
                                 Now take the same scenario, but reverse the races. Suspect primarily wanted the money and watch but used racial slurs towards his black victim, simply because he in normal life does not like black people. All he really wanted was the items though, just popped out a few racial slurs in the heat of the moment as it were. i.e. He was looking to rob someone and just happened to see a black person with a nice watch first.
                                 
                                 Still a hate crime?
                                 
                                 And I still would like to hear Pretty Panther's opinion on the previous question. But I won't hold my breath.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 80

                                    Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    If as a black male, I chose to assault you for your wallet and was not particularly partial as you were an oppotunistic target, my throwing in a racial slur or two while in the process does not make it a hate crime.
                                    
                                    That applies when primary purpose of the assault is focused on the victim's race, sexual orientation, whatever. That can be determined by law enforcement and subsequent investigation of the particulars of the crime. Roof's situation is classic and leaves no doubt that it is a 'hate crime'

                                    replyreport
                           2. 0

                              PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              Yes, I would consider that a hate crime.  That is not the issue I declined to address.  You questioned the need for hate crimes legislation given that everyone is now equal (your words).  I declined to go into the reason it is needed, believing that it would not be a productive use of my time. 
                              
                              Edited to add: The democrat from Florida referred to "alternative sexual lifestyles."  Pedophilia is not an alternative sexual lifestyle.  It is a engaging in a crime perpetrated against minors against their will.

                              replyreport
                              1. 60

                                 Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                 So, some are more equal than others??? Why should someone's skin color or sexual orientation make a crime against them any worse than  a crime against a Caucasian or heterosexual? Is my life not worth as much because of how I was born?
                                 
                                 That is really the crux of my question: What makes you so special that someone doing the same amount of harm to me gets a lesser sentence than if they did it to you? What is the justification for making a crime against you worse than the same crime against me based solely on your ethnicity or who you have sex with?
                                 
                                 There is no way you can justify that in this day and age.
                                 
                                 
                                 
                                 (And I agree pedophilia is abhorrent, I was simply pointing out that the Democrat Congressman does not share that view)

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 0

                                    PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                    You are displaying a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of hate crimes.   From the FBI website:
                                    
                                    Defining a Hate Crime
                                    A hate crime is a traditional offense like murder, arson, or vandalism with an added element of bias. For the purposes of collecting statistics, Congress has defined a hate crime as a “criminal offense against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.” Hate itself is not a crime—and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
                                    
                                    No one is saying a crime against a someone of a particular race or sexual orientation is worse than a crime against another race.  Hate crimes can be committed against any race, religion, disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation, as stated above.  If a crime meets the definition of a hate crime, it matters not against who it was directed.

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 60

                                       Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                       Then that's my point, why have "hate crimes" at all? How about it's just a frakking crime no matter why you committed it and you will be punished the same as anyone else in accordance with codified law?
                                       
                                       Why do we need special laws that say "Yeah, he was a murderer, but also murdered with a depraved and racist heart"? Well, duh. The murder part wasn't depraved enough? Didn't show enough bias all on it's own?
                                       
                                       You, see what I am getting at is this, certain people just want to be special snowflakes. They claim they want to be equal but they still want to be able to play the victim card when it suits them.
                                       
                                       Thus my strong contention that there is no need for a specialized sub-category of crimes meant only to support a certain population group's apparent need to always feel persecuted and victimized.
                                       
                                       Imagine a country where we are all treated equally under the law, and the laws were all the same no matter who you are, wouldn't that be great?  Wouldn't that be a fantastic way to promote equality and not division?

                                       report
                                       1. 0

                                          PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                          What you're not getting is that it's not "a certain population group."  It's a bunch of them, including white people (I guess it's necessary to point that out) because Caucasian is a race.  No one race or sexual orientation is special.  If a group of homosexuals targeted and terrorized straight people just because they are straight, that would be a hate crime.  No one group is "special."  "Heterosexual" is a sexual orientation.

                                          report
                                          1. 60

                                             Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                             Ahhh, but you and I both know that Hate Crime laws have never been enforced equally in this country.
                                             
                                             There are hundreds of examples of Hate Crime charges being brought against people in one instance and not another even when an almost identical fact pattern exists except for the race of the perpetrator and victim.
                                             
                                             You know it and I know it. One race has been treated very special when it comes to Hate Crimes. And so has one particular sexual orientation.

                                             report
                                             1. 0

                                                PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                I knew this was an exercise in futility.

                                                report
                                                1. 60

                                                   Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                   Okay, where am I wrong there?
                                                   
                                                   Can you deny that anything I described is not accurate? Hate Crime legislation was not enacted with Caucasians in mind and you know it, it had to be worded the way it because a law cannot carve out a specific racial group for special treatment, at least, not in writing.
                                                   
                                                   Do you deny that there has been a great disparity in the application of this type of law, even when the fact patterns merge save the race of the people involved? I can give you numerous examples.
                                                   
                                                   But prove me wrong on that if you think you are able.

                                                   report
                                                   1. 0

                                                      PrettyPantherposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                                                      Actually, the burden lies with you to back up your position with evidence.  I do not know if the law has been applied unequally. I agree it was written because certain populations have been historically targeted more frequently and more violently.  So what?  Laws are written to address a need.

                                                      report
                     2. 80

                        Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                        As for the pedophilia issue, reading the article, it appears that sexual activity that is non-consentual is still prohibited. I say that engaging in sexual activity as an adult with a minor is always by very definition, non-consentual.  Like Paul Harvey says, now its time for the rest of the story. I am not convinced that I am getting the truth from the article. Pedophilia is a crime, and pedophiles are criminals not a protected class.

                        replyreport
                        1. 60

                           Superkevposted 9 years agoin reply to this

                           In the quote the Democrat Congressman does make a reference to "..all Americans, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability or all of these ‘philias’ and fetishes and ‘isms’ that were put forward need not live in fear because of who they are. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this rule.”
                           
                           Seems that he was aware of the text of the amendment and still opposed it.

                           replyreport
                           1. 80

                              Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

                              If that is the way it was, then it is a grave error and I am opposed to it, regardless of who voted and supports it. The potential outcome of this will never see the light of day
                              
                              The key to this in my opinion is the exceptions for sexual activity for the non-consenting and we know that any sexual activity between an adult and, say, a 10 year old is statutory rape, who has offered to change that provision to accomodate the IASHS driven legislation approved by a Democrat?
                              
                              But, for every one outrage in my opinion from the Democratic side, I can think of ten from the GOP.

                              replyreport
      2. 89

         cam8510posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Very good response, PrettyPanther

         replyreport
   2. 95

      wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Is there a valid constitutional (non-religious) argument to ban polygamy?  Throughout history, including Christian history, polygamy (polyandry and/or polygyny) has probably been the most common form of marriage - why is it banned?
      
      Personally, I think that polygamy (absent a gross imbalance in the sexes) will harm society, but that is only a feeling without reason to back it.  Is there something else?

      replyreport
      1. 80

         Credence2posted 9 years agoin reply to this

         That is a good question, Wilderness, so how far is too far?  Fifty years ago the issue was interracial marriage, today it is the gays, what will it be tomorrow?
         
         The court does not live in a vacuum and may well gauge public acceptance of practices that would have been abhorrent a generation ago.
         
         As for the  unianinous SC ruling in Loving vs Virginia in 1967, striking down state laws prohibition interracial marriage, was society ready for such a ruling in 1937? Society and its changing sensibilities are the driving force behind much of the Court's rulings.
         
         Who knows, maybe questions will arise about polygamy and while most current abhor it, perhaps the next big thing will be people tolerating, first accepting later, and utimately insisting on it as a 'right' lastly with a following over  a  broad swath of society,
         
         Mores change with time, so 18th century style Constitution interpretation reserved for these kinds of decisions cannot work. In the big scheme of things, it will be the people who ultimately determine that that which was once verboten is now expected and demanded. Time is allowed for people to absorb the idea, subject it to litigation in lower courts with some degree of success before the SC gets involved, this can happen over a generation or two.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            Concerning interracial marriage; "was society ready for such a ruling in 1937".
            
            The answer is that some of society was, but the remainder insisted that they didn't like it and thus no one could participate in such activity.  We seem to be getting a little closer, though progress is very slow, to a recognition that the majority cannot (or should not) exert control over a minority for no better reason than "I don't like it", or "My god says it's wrong".
            
            In the big scheme of things, that's what it's always about with such morality questions; does some of the population demand the right to control actions that cause them no harm simply because they don't like those actions for themselves.  We seem to have an innate desire to control others and deny them the freedom to live as they wish, but there is a glimmer of hope as we answer such questions as interracial or gay marriage potential with a "Yes".

            replyreport
      2. 59

         janesixposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         I don't see anything wrong with polygamy. Any consenting adults should be able to marry in my opinion. Including brother/sister etc.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 9 years agoin reply to this

            I agree, though if a society ends up with a high percentage of unmarried males (or females) I also forsee problems. 
            
            Brother/sister - I don't know and would have to think about that.  A high possibility of genetic defects, producing a need for society to intervene in raising and care.  Sterilization before marriage?  Seems draconian, but we know too well the results of close interbreeding.

            replyreport
4. 61

   Paul Wingertposted 9 years ago

   

   replyreport
   1. 84

      gmwilliamsposted 9 years agoin reply to this

      Yes, HUG and TALK SOME SENSE into them.  LGBT people ARE here and AREN'T going anywhere.  People had better get with the program.  Societies forever change, evolve, and progress.  Societies and people who elect not to progress, soon experience atrophy.  It is sad when people refuse to change and accept the new.  I think that this is based upon fear.  After all, prejudice is based upon fear of those who are different. 
      

      replyreport
      1. 79

         Castlepalomaposted 9 years agoin reply to this

         Lo

         replyreport